I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
"The court system" is not a collective entity with a shared set of thoughts. Different judges, different arguments, in one case (but not the other) a jury, these things make a difference.
The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases, but cases very close in time ending up with different trial court decisions despite broadly similar fact patterns are not really surprising.
Lots of things that are legal/illegal are only so because they haven't been tested in court. Precedents are also specific and sometimes the details of a case make it different enough that the precedent does not apply.
I literally described how that impacts things: "The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases".
Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering).
The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.
I wanted to point out that juries can make arbitrary decisions, nullification being a kind of example of this.
I dunno, the fact that precedent is only binding when it is from a higher appellate court to a court subordinate to that appellate court isn't what I'd describe as "funny", just rather sensible.
> Thus precedents mean nothing
Not that I've seen any inconsistent legal ruling offered between the two cases. The fact that the broad outline of the case is similar doesn't mean the decisive legal questions are, but, yes, precedent from a trial court decision isn't binding (same or different court), only, at best, persuasive, and then only if it is a citable (published) decision in the first place, which most trial court decisions are not.
> Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.
Well, no, the jury is "free" to give answers that the trial judge finds to be reasonably supported by the evidence to the questions the trial judge poses to the jury.
And that's not directly affected by precedent anyway, precedent only governs questions of law, not fact, and juries don't answer questions of law, only fact.
“Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.
It's inventory, delivery, and to an extent stewardship. The same with Steam. I don't expect junk and I expect refunds when I find it. Once you split that to a vendor the perverse incentives kick in and you end up right back in the Bad Place.
I personally think somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% is probably closer to sustainable, given all that we expect. And I also think Apple fucked up. If they had voluntarily reduced their fees and created the intro level at the same time, and a year or so earlier, they could have picked a higher number than they are likely now to end up with when all is said and done.
I meant the Hidden Notification Entitlement. By default iOS requires you to display a notification when you receive one.
But that conflicts with the idea of encrypting notifications. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984
That said, if I could not pay both Steam and Apple for Civ VI DLC, that would make me so happy
Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.
The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140)
The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."
In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk).
Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.
Numbers 5 gives a process for distilling a “bitter water” and circumstance under which to induce an abortion with said water.
In case you’re curious it’s simply if a husband has “a jealousy” and fear that his wife has “laid with another man.”
In other words reincarnation.
In a way we were set up before birth as said by Jeremiah above, because our DNA existed before we became the fertilized egg. Our DNA was in two parts which were then combined by the act of conception.
As a practical matter, they know that many women won't realize they're pregnant until it's too late to feasibly schedule the procedure. They're minimizing the number of abortions while moving what the American public sees as reasonable from 24 weeks to 6. Once everyone's used to six, they can reduce it even more.
I grew up in an ultra conservative religious community, and as a kid, stuffed envelopes for a pro-life candidate’s campaign without fully understanding what it was I was doing, because I was a kid. I’ve seen the mindset up close, and it’s very worrisome.
Do think it’s ultimately short sighted because of the likely pendulum swing. But there is certainly a lot of damage to be done before that happens.
These ultra religious groups provide a sense of community, and the highly restrictive rules and policies they espouse give them a sense of control - something that many of them have lost in various ways. It’s as sad as it is dangerous.
Looking at data from 2022, about 13.6% of the population is White Evangelical Protestant, but that's been on the decline. It was around 25% a couple decades ago. Overall, just over half of the country is Christian, most being Protestant of some denomination.
But it's the White Evangelical Protestants that are the big driver here. You might think it's the 12.6% White Catholic and the 8.6% Hispanic Catholic populations that are the most fervently anti-abortion, but most actually vote for more liberal politicians.
The thing is, Evangelicals, if I understand correctly, weren't even that anti-abortion to begin with. That was seen as more of a Catholic issue historically. But what they're very big on is the idea that 1) America is the greatest country in the world, and 2) America is great because it's a Christian country. As such, they feel it's important to elect Christian leaders who feel and think like they do. And because they are predominantly white and their leadership is exclusively male, they want white men to be in control. (And I say this as a white, cisgender man.)
Because they've always been such a large percentage of the US population, and, more recently, because US distracting gives rural voters a greater voice than urban voters, they've been a large political force in the country since the 19th century, but in the 20th century, they were never so large as to completely dominate US politics. And this kinda worked well for both sides in the early 20th, since towns, counties, and states dominated by Evangelicals were largely autonomous enough to do whatever they wanted locally. But when desegregation came, and women entered the workforce in greater numbers, Evangelicals were forced to accept nonwhites and women holding important positions, even in their areas of the country.
Abortion became an issue they could use to gain support from Catholic voters, and as a wedge issue for the larger community. For Evangelicals, it was less about writing specific religious creeds into law, and more about forming strategies to gain political power so they could put the "right people" in back in charge of the country. It also helps reinforce that men are in control by removing autonomy from women.
https://www.prri.org/spotlight/prri-2022-american-values-atl...
If you can make people believe that you can make them believe anything.
That's their goal, make critical thinking unpopular, condemnable and "sinful".
That is an interesting question which may have something to do with Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma. Even though Republicans as a whole will lose votes because of this, each individual Republican candidate will stand to gain an advantage over their primaries rivals by being perceived as more uncompromising, more principled.
And it is curious if not silly, 6 weeks is seen as, conceived to be "more principled", than 7 weeks.
One way to look at it is that killing millions of people is NOT morally equivalent to killing 1 person. Is it?
Similarly killing 100 cells of a just fertilized egg is not morally equivalent to killing a born person with 30 trillion cells.
Time limits can be a pragmatic and tested solution. I think most European countries use 12 to 15 weeks.
But if you want a shorter time-limit you should give a good rationale for it. Why you want it 6 weeks but not 1 week?
Whereas those who didn't propose any change to Roe vs. Wade do not really need a reason for NOT making a change. There must be a reason when we make or try to make a change.
I'd laugh, if it wasn't a situation with so much real harm to real people.
Apple is very much considered here.
But of course there are plenty of HN users from outside the US. Another quick search suggests Android is around 66% in Europe, and iOS is only at 33%. Asia is ever more tilted toward Android, at 79% to 20%.
Even then, that assumes HN users' mobile OS preference mirrors that of the country/continent they are from, which feels a little unlikely to me; my gut feeling is that HN users to prefer Android at a greater rate (even if by not that much) than the rest of the people where they live.
But let's go back to assuming that HN's readership mirrors the mobile OS market share from country/continent they're from. It's not hard to drop that US 58% iOS number below 50% by subtracting US users from the total and adding users from literally anywhere else, where iOS usage is much lower.
Regardless, though, I think even if somehow the iOS numbers are still higher than the Android numbers, I think it's probably not that case that obviously everyone who uses an iPhone would side with Apple in this matter. Many/most would, but still likely not enough for it to be accurate to say that more than 50% of HN are a bunch of Apple apologists who will side with them in a legal matter and against Google in the exact same legal matter.
At some point in the last decade, large newspapers saw their local ad monopolies being disrupted by Google search ads so as the lost ad revenue they started running negative headlines on Google left and right for years. Apple also took advantage of this and portrayed themselves as the saviors of privacy. That created a negative perception of Google and a positive one for Apple affecting the society as a whole including HNers and these random sample (jury).
Your derision is misdirected. It's literally what the court case was about.
Regardless, at this point you're arguing against the court here. Google lost; they have a monopoly on Android app distribution. Maybe that'll get overturned on appeal, but I hope not.
Google still has the content of all of my email. Well, I guess except for the transactional stuff that comes from automated sources.
* Google started out pure good and turned pure evil.
* Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy.
* Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there.
"Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices, anti-repair, government corruption. They do some very good things with privacy, security, long-term support, and similar.
If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple), courts are random. Very random. Legal processes have little grounding in any sort of objective anything, and kind of resemble a chaotic die roll.
It's probably this that GP is confused over
It's addressed, if not in this article, then others - the Apple trial wasn't a jury trial. Google lost the motion to not have a jury trial